Diogenes Brito is a Designer and Engineerhttp://uxdiogenes.com/Tue, 30 May 2017 02:42:17 +0000en-USSite-Server v6.0.0-13647-13647 (http://www.squarespace.com)Not Just a Brown Hand, ApparentlyDiogenes BritoSat, 06 Feb 2016 14:00:00 +0000http://uxdiogenes.com/blog/not-just-a-brown-hand-apparently4ea1db0dd09ac4c7fce2d997:4ec97b9dd09a9f2fb6cf0e48:592cdc0917bffc6464ab50b7You are neither atoning for hundreds of years of continued injustice, nor
creating institutionalized racism against white people. You’re just making
the world a little friendlier for the many, many people alienated by their
media.The first version of this article was originally published on November 6, 2015 on Quartz.

The hand in question was part of a graphic announcing our latest initiative, the “Add to Slack” button. I decided to make the hand in a promotional graphic look like my hand: brown.

I wrote about my brief internal struggle with the decision to use a brown hand in a post on Medium, and in less than a week, the post had seen almost 25,000 views and thousands of shares on social media. Over a dozen people of color reached out to me directly online and in person about how the article resonated with them and their experience. It currently sits at over 49k views.

I should not have been surprised. People of color are underrepresented in the tech industry and all STEM fields, as well as government and otherpositions of power. Most insidiously, we are underrepresented in American media, and I don’t (just) mean among journalists and children’s books. Everywhere we look, the visual media that propagates and shapes our culture reinforces whiteness as normative. White is the default, and everyone else is other. A brown hand in a widely circulated image not about crime, violence, poverty, or hip-hop? Sadly, that is a rare sight.

While outright discrimination is largely verboten today, areas like iconography still overwhelmingly exclude people of colour and women. It’s a signal that reinforces their outsider status, a reminder that the power to make decisions still rests in the hands of white men. — Murad Hemmadi in Canadian Business

My point is not to grimly recount the state of American society. I hope to convince designers like myself who are considering making a similar choice to seize the opportunity, whether their skin is milky white or toasty brown. I also want to say that our small choices as creators matter in powerful but sometimes subtle ways.

What’s Stopping Us?

Melanin-positive designers can experience trepidation about showing people of color in the imagery they create. Like me, they might worry that they are expending some of their precious social capital at their jobs not to accomplish great work or help their career, but to make a “statement” onbehalf of all people of color. And if we are forced to defend our choice and allow emotion to seep into our tone of voice, we might end up reduced from a multi-faceted human being to, say, an angry black person.

The sword cuts both ways. White people may also feel afraid that their efforts to include more diverse representation will be perceived as tokenism. After reading my article, an early Slack employee told me about a long conversation the team had about using stock photos that prominently featured a black model. They had chosen the photo based on its tone, the expression on the model’s face, and the context of its use, but they worried about how their decision would be interpreted. That colleague, Johnny Rodgers wrote to me:

Will people think we (10 white people at the time) just picked it because it has a black guy front and center? Is that like reverse racism? Why is this even a conversation? As you know, we used it, and heard nary a peep. Of course.

Don’t overthink it, just go for it. We all have to work towards making inclusion an ordinary occurrence. Rather than wonder about how to adequately represent exactly 17% colored people in an image that only has three people in it, chill out and drop some extra color in there. You are neither atoning for hundreds of years of continued injustice, nor creating institutionalized racism against white people. You’re just making the world a little friendlier for the many, many people alienated by their media.

Join the Cool Kids

The tech industry is making progress in increasing the inclusivity of its iconography, so you’ll be in good company when you decide to buck the status quo. The Unicode Consortium, the non-profit group that governs the emoji standard, proposed a more diverse update in 2014. Apple was the first operating system maker to implement the new, more inclusive set of emoji.

Instead of a white default, you get the special!

At Facebook, design manager Caitlin Winner visually promoted the female silhouette in the new friends icon, making it more prominent. Also at Facebook, Julius Tarng got the ball rolling on photographing diverse-looking hands holding phones for the company’s design resource site. Meanwhile, the grassroots initiative “#WOCInTechChat” recently published stock photos of …women of color in tech, of all things.

Jameson Locke is a main character in the story.

Even big-name game developers like 343 Industries are doing their part, featuring a black main character in the latest installment of their blockbuster Halo franchise.

Another (half) shout-out to Apple for finally including darker hands in their new product shots after the most recent release event.

Hey! People like me are totally securing their phones via fingerprint!

Note to Apple: Don’t think I haven’t noticed y’all turning down the lights on a few of the shots to make it ambiguous.

B+ for effort, Cupertino. A for efficacy.

Our Choices as Creators Matter

The artifacts and systems we design reflect our values. Our creations make statements, and while those can be deliberate or unintentional, they can never be truly neutral. I believe our designs must willfully promote not just what is or was, but what should be.

As Eric Meyer, an expert in CSS and web standards, recently said at the XOXO arts and technology conference in Portland,

We often say the media and the services we build are like roads. Neutral to their uses. That is not true of roads and it should not be accepted of what we create. Because, yes, a ribbon of asphalt is neutral to its uses and to the extent a ribbon of asphalt can be said can be, you know, neutral to anything. But we are not neutral to the uses of that asphalt. We decide where and how a road should be built. Which includes deciding we’ll have access to that road, and who will not … what was valued in the creation of that road is still implicit in its course.

After my experience with the “Add to Slack” button, I know that going forward I won’t hesitate to include people of color in the imagery I produce. And for those readers who are not in the position to make that choice, demand to see inclusivity in the sites and services that you use. Let the makers know how important it is to see a piece of yourself in the product. Little by little, we can help shape the world we want to live in.

]]>Just a Brown HandDiogenes BritoThu, 22 Oct 2015 00:50:39 +0000http://uxdiogenes.com/blog/just-a-brown-hand4ea1db0dd09ac4c7fce2d997:4ec97b9dd09a9f2fb6cf0e48:56282a29e4b052473f4b0fa3Here's a little ditty I wrote about a small design choice that ended up
meaning a lot to me.On August 25th, Slack unveiled a new way for developers to connect to Slack, the “Add to Slack” button. It was the culmination of a great deal of work from manySlackemployees, and just the beginning of what we have in store for Slack in the near future. Today, though, I want to talk about a seemingly small detail that has been more important to me than I would have expected: the skin color of the hand in the launch graphics.

Slack’s people of color group (#earth-tones) was the first to say something.

Why was the choice an important one, and why did it matter to the people of color who saw it? The simple answer is that they rarely see something like that. These people saw the image and immediately noticed how unusual it was. They were appreciative of being represented in a world where American media has the bad habit of portraying white people as the default, and everyone else as deviations from the norm.

The result of that American tendency is the telling and retelling of what Chimamanda Adichie would call a single story, one that reinforces people of color as “culturally other.” And boy, do we feel it:

I’m a black person who has been successful in tech by anyone’s standards. I felt fortunate, and I’ve rarely felt any overt obstacles to my progress. But there was a point when I realized that there was a reason behind this. I’ve made sacrifices to be accepted into an industry where people who look like me are woefully underrepresented. I’ve become distant from my culture, my heritage and my own personal history, in order to be more palatable to a white standard. This leaves me feeling stuck between 2 worlds. Obviously not able to pass for white (and not wanting to), but also not “black enough” for those who look like me. I want to try to convey this sacrifice and its consequences in hopes that others in my position feel some solidarity. — Marco Rogers on Conforming to Succeed and What it Means For People of Color

Behind The Scenes: Slack HQ

I was the designer working with the platform team on the Add to Slack project. When launch day began to loom and we didn’t have any marketing images, it fell to me to quickly whip assets together for our blog and social media accounts. The venerable Matt Hodgins previously made a sweet little chunky hand for a banner on our API site, so I decided to use that as a main element. The hand vector file was made of many distinct overlapping pieces, so I asked him to make the change to save time.

You really can’t got wrong with Hatt Modgins.

A few iterations later — and some discussion about whether my visual metaphor of the button coming from the cloud was too…“and glob said, let there be Slack button” — I sent off what I needed, and we were ready for launch.

Behind the Scenes: My Brain

Having decided to use the hand but needing to ask Matt to change the color, I was first torn about whether it was okay to ask him, then upset at myself for hesitating so much. The internal dialogue went something like this:

Diógenes, Brown Person:This hand should totally be brown. I’m brown.Diogenes, Person: I’m trying to get good design work done and get this project out, not become an activist and start a movement or something.Diógenes, Brown Person:It’s not a big deal, you’re the designer, you get to make it brown.Diogenes, Person: Yea but, I’m going to ask Matt to do it, that’s like, making a thing of it.Diógenes, Brown Person: So what‽ You should make a thing of it, you never see this sort of thing.Diogenes, Person: True. Dang. Now I feel bad about thinking so much about whether this is okay. This is okay right? I mean, no one’s gonna say anything. What could they say? Saying something about it would be racist.Diógenes, Brown Person: Dude, even if he was the designer on this project he should make it brown. It’s like, affirmative design action.Diogenes, Person: Yea!Diógenes, Brown Person: Yea!Diogenes, Person: Good talk, bro.

These Little Things Matter

After the announcements, I surprised myself by staying on edge until I saw that folks had responded positively to the image. This thread by @belaurieon Twitter in particular, put me at ease:

It may not mean much to y’all but it signifies..1. POC work at slack.. making visual decisions that are seen by millions (impact)2. Visuals matter…. specifically around product users and what a “technologist” looks like. Seeing a brown hand is HUGE — icons matter.3. slack is serious about elevating POC in my opinion not just through press releases but through business decisions..This content is going to be on a lot of blogs, posts and shared to a global audience..having imagery that highlights an “anomaly” — — HUGEIn a world that highlights “white is right” and “optimal” brings me great joy to see some melanin on the page. :)You da best Slack team.

I couldn’t have said it better myself. These small choices matter, so make them whenever you can. People will notice, and they’ll feel good. Things will be better.

I mean this: White Americans can care about more than just themselves. They really can. And the rest of us? We are DYING to see ourselves anywhere. — Mira Jacob

You too, white people. Don’t be afraid to mix it up and use images depicting non-white people. There is certainly enough imagery of white people to go around. If you do so mindfully and with intent to avoid an ignorant caricature of a whole people, then things will work out and you will have made a small but important difference. Our choices as creators matter.

As system designers, we have a responsibility (and opportunity) to design systems with stronger values. They may not change us (we are old), but our children will see the values in these systems as normal. That is both scary and exciting.—Buster Benson on Eric Meyer’s XOXO 2015 Conference Talk

]]>The Digital Designer of the FutureDiogenes BritoSun, 20 Sep 2015 00:07:41 +0000http://uxdiogenes.com/blog/the-digital-designer-of-the-future4ea1db0dd09ac4c7fce2d997:4ec97b9dd09a9f2fb6cf0e48:55fdf773e4b07a55be867766Is there a timeless definition of the prototypical digital designer? What
should we aspire to be as new tools, techniques, and computing devices come
and go? I would posit that there are 3 fundamental roles of a digital
designer.

Pattern by Miguel Angel Avila, @geeklangel

Or: If Not Just a Pixel-Pusher, Then What Else?

These days, the latest technology goes in and out of style at light speed. It’s enough to make an interface designer wonder how she’ll be prepared for the future and stay competitive and competent in the job market. In fact, “The Future of Work” was the title of the panel I was recently on as part of AIGA’s San Francisco Design Week, along with Heather Phillips, Tyson Kallberg, Mario Delgado, and Dennis Field.

As designers we frequently talk about what “design” really means, and what’s the best tool for a design, but at the panel we all seemed to be hinting at the larger question of what the role of the designer should be. Is there a timeless definition of the prototypical digital designer? What should we aspire to be as new tools, techniques, and computing devices come and go? I would posit that there are 3 fundamental roles of a digital designer.

A digital designer is a…

Facilitator, assisting others in refining and transmitting ideas.

Steward, supporting and protecting empathy and the creative process.

Connoisseur, maintaining a high bar of quality.

Designer as Facilitator

The first essential function of a designer is to facilitate others in refining and transmitting their own ideas. We can accomplish this is by designing compelling presentations and communications, which helps inspire others and rally colleagues towards a unified direction. The main way we do it, however, is by making abstract ideas concrete for others. This is an act of synthesis, it means coalescing knowledge of the medium, human behavior, stakeholder demands, and business goals into specific, actionable details.

We panelists all agreed: while every designer need not be a coder, every designer must be a hacker of sorts, mashing together whatever it takes to bring blurry, partially defined concepts into sharp focus. If you are wondering which tools to learn, simply pick one and get started. The choice of tool is irrelevant as long as the experience with the result conveys the idea and allows collaborators to distill their own thoughts. Put simply,

“Design is the intermediary between information and understanding.”— Han Hofmann

A designer’s ability to imagine something in their mind’s eye with a high degree of detail and convert that to a realistic likeness removes the mental burden of having to visualize from others. This frees them up to apply their own domain expertise to the problem at hand.

“People understand what they can see. If a programmer cannot see what a program is doing, she can’t understand it.” — Bret Victor, Learnable Programming

Similarly, we support colleagues in evaluating ideas by making them tangible. Designers can support and encourage powerful ways of thinking by helping others see their ideas, and as our simulacra become more refined we provide a maps of the way forward for others to follow. We help collaborators decide what to do next and provide the confidence to act. Doing that mental heavy lifting for people helps a team hone in on the best possible expression of a given idea much faster than they might have otherwise.

Designer as Steward

The second fundamental role of the designer is to be a steward of a user-centered creative process. We should be ambassadors for empathy and creativity, using and extolling the virtues of what David Kelley calls “design thinking.” Here’s another gem from Bret Victor, again proving the not-so-large gap between user interface designers and software designers:

“Programming is a way of thinking, not a rote skill. Learning about “for” loops is not learning to program, any more than learning about pencils is learning to draw.” — Bret Victor

In the same way, being a user interface designer is less about knowing Photoshop or Sketch, and more about sharing and applying a way of thinking.

I am intentional about my choice of the word steward here, and its connotations of both assistance and protection. We assist people in seeing and assuming the perspective of others, to help create interfaces, products, and services that are responsive to human needs and considerate of human frailties. Designers are also stewards in the other sense of the word, because we protect the creative process. We protect nascent ideas, and in doing so, move our company towards innovation. We know about what Ed Catmull, head of Pixar and Amy Wallace call “ugly babies”:

“Originality is fragile. And, in its first moments, it’s often far from pretty. This is why I call early mock-ups of our films “ugly babies.” They are not beautiful, miniature versions of the adults they will grow up to be. They are truly ugly: awkward and unformed, vulnerable and incomplete. They need nurturing — in the form of time and patience — in order to grow…Our job is to protect our babies from being judged too quickly…If, while in this vulnerable state, it is exposed to naysayers who fail to see its potential or lack the patience to let it evolve, it could be destroyed.” — Creativity, Inc.

As a part of the small group that is expected to provide creativity on demand and on an ongoing basis, designers are well suited to champion and defend good ideas — whatever their source — until they are fully formed.

Designer as Connoisseur

The 3rd and final fundamental role of a designer is that of a connoisseur, maintaining and promoting a high standard of quality. Quality is somewhat subjective, but it boils down to being mindful during the creative process, making every choice a deliberate and intentional one. The connoisseur role is liekly the one that comes most naturally to those who choose design as their profession. A good designer strives to become a discerning judge of great work, honing their taste so that they can become appropriately critical of the right things in the right order.

“As with all creative professions, design included, you want to hire someone with good taste and a discerning eye, who can scrutinize and poke and prod through all the dusty corners of a design and emerge with a comprehensive list of what works and what doesn’t.”— Julie Zhuo

With a sharpened critical eye, designers can share an appreciation for craftsmanship and conscientious execution with the rest of their team, pushing those around them towards excellence.

That Seat at the Table

By now you have heard about designers gaining a seat at the leadership table, alongside business and engineering executives. In light of these three fundamental roles, it makes perfect sense why that would happen.

“The ability to build empathy, connect the dots on complex problems, and help teams apply design thinking are crucial skills a designer can bring to a leadership team.”— Phil King

By facilitating the visualization and transmission of ideas, stewarding the creative process, and contributing the discriminating taste of a connoisseur, designers can secure their place at the table now and in the future.

]]>The Digital Designer of the FutureIdentity Crisis: Designer Job TitlesDiogenes BritoWed, 05 Nov 2014 08:40:28 +0000http://uxdiogenes.com/blog/identity-crisis-designer-job-titles4ea1db0dd09ac4c7fce2d997:4ec97b9dd09a9f2fb6cf0e48:5459de06e4b091e613f17d71One of the fun things about conferences is getting to hear how dozens of
people like you or with similar jobs introduce and describe themselves. You
get to experiment and adjust your own introduction as you meet more and
more people. I was able to attend both XOXO and Brooklyn Beta this year,
and was reminded (again) of the difficulty in introducing yourself as
designer, and describing what you do in a way others understand...

Or, what the hell do you actually do?

One of the fun things about conferences is getting to hear how dozens of people like you or with similar jobs introduce and describe themselves. You get to experiment and adjust your own introduction as you meet more and more people. I was able to attend both XOXO and Brooklyn Beta this year, and was reminded (again) of the difficulty in introducing yourself as designer, and describing what you do in a way others understand.

In a classic case of the “the map is not the territory”, job titles have a nasty way of…not being useful. I’m looking at you, creative technologists and digital prophets ಠ_ಠ. Job titles try to be both a concise description of a person’s professional responsibilities and a signifier of distinction. They imply a person’s competence using rank as a proxy for experience (senior x), while attempting to describe their professional responsibilities in just a few words. Add to that the gulf between belief and reality, or meaning and usage, and you might as well skip titles altogether and go right to a sentence describing what it is you do and why anybody should care. Plus, everybody wants to protect their ego, impressing the listener with their impressive role and well-rounded-ness. Don’t pigeon-hole me, brah!

Designers in the (Web) Technology Industry

Design in the internet technology industry is one of the worst offenders, with titles going in and out of style like Internet memes. You could simply say you are a designer, if you like wasting time; you will definitely need a follow up description. (“So…what do you design?”). If you are—or maybe just want to be—an artist who works under externally applied constraints (for money, lol), being a Graphic Designer or Visual Designer will work for you until you get tired of people saying you just make things pretty. (“I solve meaningful visual problems!”) Or maybe you realize you are more marketable as a User Interface Designer or UI Designer. That is probably the most accurate title of the bunch, it being a fair description of what most designers in the industry actually do. Presumably the listener can then go on to hear what that entails at a particular company, or assume they know enough from what they’ve heard before.

A designer is a planner with an aesthetic sense.

— Bruno Munari, Design as Art

For those designers who don’t art so good, Interaction Designer is the flavor of choice. The implication is they focus not on “pixel perfection” but on workflows. They might favor working on sequences over individual states, and their final artifacts skew towards wireframes over mocks, and plans over “looks-like” prototypes. I fundamentally disagree with the idea of being a designer who stops so far from the final, intended result, as ideas are a dime a dozen and execution is everything. The only thing that matters is what made it out into the real world, what the user actually interacted with.

There are some more exotic variations on the interaction designer title like Digital Interactive Designer or Behavior Designer which can swing either way, either implying a deep knowledge and expertise of what drives human behavior and how to design for specific behavioral outcomes, or nothing, because we’re all trying to make people do stuff.

But Lo! How can a designer bear to be described by such a tiny piece of their potential, we can do oh so much more! We’ve grown into unique snowflakes capable of creating anything in the world. We can create any service, any manifestation of an idea, any experience…as long as it is a website or an app. So now we have User Experience Designers, or UX Designers, who, yes, design interfaces (“but we think about so much more! Please listen to my keywords: user research, data, ideation, blah blah blah”). The issue here is one of marketing. We want to show we are great designers, and great designers use tools (as appropriate) like user research and data to identify problems and build empathy. They consider the entirety of a user’s experience with a product over time and multiple contact points at both a high and a low level of detail. They consider everything from cultural contexts and cognitive ergonomics to the exact right shade of blue.

But the user experience designer moniker is inherently flawed. We are not truly “designing experiences”. A person’s experience is deeply personal, subject to their perspective, feelings, and even what they had for dinner that night. We are not affecting it directly, but hoping to influence it through the filter of their perception. The same way job titles are only loosely related to what people actually do, a user’s experience is connected to, but not entirely defined by the designer’s choices. To quote Tim Brown:

Designing for the web is like visualizing a tesseract. We build experiences by manipulating their shadows.

— Tim Brown

Plus, it is an entire product team’s responsibility (the entire company’s, even!) to help create a positive user experience through the parts of a usage situation they can control.

Product Design

I think the general vagueness of a term like user experience design, or perhaps the fact that few designers who label themselves as such have sufficient expertise in such a broad range of skills, is the impetus behind the rise of the Product Designer title. It has certainly come into vogue over the past couple of years. I personally understand and use the term to mean a creative expert in the design process who is both a visual designer and an interaction designer; the product designer is a professional who can take barely formed ideas from conception to completion within the business constraints of time and money. Alas, even with this term there isn’t a solid definition. Some people mostly agree with me, while others see it as a higher, more conceptual level of design when compared to interaction or visual design, or put the focus of a product designer on understanding behavior. Still others use it like user experience design, as an umbrella term that contains and subsumes other, more narrow definitions of design.

One thing is clear: these days, designers in the internet technology industry need a broader set of skills than ever. Both in terms of soft skills like creative problem solving, emotional intelligence, etc., and “hard”-er skills, like Illustrator mastery, typesetting, etc. The tools of the trade are becoming easier and easier to use (thank god for Sketch), and companies like Apple have helped bring the experience of good design to the masses. That means that more and more, designers must think about higher order problems, like whether their design problem is even the right one.

Job Titles and Your Personal Journey

Every designer follows their own path to discovering the right label for themselves, all the while those labels change around them as time passes. You simultaneously figure out what your job title means to you as you figure out what it means to other people. It is a continuous act of self discovery as you gain wisdom and skill, designing a career while learning more about your craft and how you like to practice it. There is a tension between what you actually are and the person you could reasonably sell yourself as, between the skill sets you actually have and those you could have, or what you have accomplished and your potential. Not to mention fitting that square peg into the round hole of the job market or the needs of any one particular company. The effect of a job title on your marketability is not insignificant, and the proof is in the dollars:

Even among designers of similar seniority, there is marked difference in compensation for UX Design, UI Design, and Visual Design.

— Daniel Burka

The Proof is in Your Pudding

It is easy to fall into the trap to try and guess what is in fashion, update your dribbble profile, and apply that label to yourself. Resist that temptation and design for value, not pixels. Dave Wiskus said it best:

If you’re really good at what you do, it looks easy. But easy is tough to sell to clients, so we designers develop bad habits in order to make our work look impressive. Substance is key.

— Dave Wiskus

Once you get in the door at that company you would like to work for—and that is a difficult task that might require a certain…personal brand—it is your portfolio that will seal the deal. Concrete proof that you can execute is your biggest asset.

I think the wide variety of ambiguous designer job titles reflects not only the wide variety of skills we can possess, but also that ever-present insecurity manydesignersand creativesfeel. Let us all strive to be plain-spoken about our work and what we aim to accomplish, with both others and ourselves. The next time someone asks about your job, try just saying “I’m a designer” and following that up with a short and sweet description of what you do and what you care most about.

]]>Identity Crisis: Designer Job TitlesThe Three Laws of Interaction DesignDiogenes BritoTue, 28 Oct 2014 04:10:39 +0000http://uxdiogenes.com/blog/the-three-laws-of-interaction-design4ea1db0dd09ac4c7fce2d997:4ec97b9dd09a9f2fb6cf0e48:51fa8860e4b0cdf15da929fbScience fiction author Isaac Asimov once wrote the "Three Laws of Robotics"
into his *Robot* series of stories. These laws were permanently hard-coded
into every robot as a final failsafe to prevent catastrophe and protect
humanity. I got to wondering, what are our final failsafes? What would our
three laws be as interaction designers?

Science fiction author Isaac Asimov once wrote the "Three Laws of Robotics" into his Robot series of stories. These laws were permanently hard-coded into every robot as a final failsafe to prevent catastrophe and protect humanity. I got to wondering, what are our final failsafes? What would our three laws be as interaction designers?

A user's perception of an interface is inextricably connected to its form, content, and behavior. Just as industrial and graphic designers focus on form, interaction designers hold behavior as the foremost element to consider. When designing to influence a user's experience, our three laws must be primarily concerned with how an interface behaves, and what effect it has on user behavior. They must be basic and unalterable fundamentals upon which to build other interaction design principles. Lucky for me, the three laws I would go with have already been alluded to by the master himself, Jef Raskin, the brain behind the original Macintosh project. He drops all three bombshells on the same page of his book, The Humane Interface, an interaction design book of near-biblical status. If you look closely, you will see that most popular, modern interfaces use concepts and techniques put forth within the pages of Raskin's landmark book, including both Microsoft and Apple devices.

Law #1

Playing off of Asimov's 3 laws himself, Raskin says that "[t]he first law of interface design should be: A computer shall not harm your work or, through inaction, allow your work to come to harm."[1] Let us all remember that a computer is a tool you use to accomplish something; simply using a piece of software is rarely, if ever, the end goal in and of itself. Thus we can all agree that the single most aggravating experience you can have with a computer is losing work. The only thing worse than having to redo work you have already done is losing data that you cannot reproduce exactly, like creative work.

Applications should maintain the integrity of your data as you entered it and do as much as possible to prevent users from losing work. Maybe you think this is only an engineer's concern. Developers must make sure their software has safeguards and redundancy to prevent data loss (and has as few bugs as possible), right? In fact, data protection and effort preservation is also an interface design task, as a designer must anticipate—and/or find through user research—how a user is likely to lose work or have to duplicate her efforts. This means things like including robust undo functionality, and shielding destructive actions to prevent inadvertent data loss. A great example of this in action is GitHub's repository deletion dialog, which works because unlike other confirmation-style dialogs, this one forces you to type the name of the repository to continue. It is a clever technique that forces the user's locus of attention to the repository name during the deletion process. The safeguard protects the user against her own habituated workflows.

The GitHub delete confirmation dialog.

This first law also applies to the preservation of efforts related to the content the user is working with, as well as the content itself. For example, it can take significant effort to make a selection like the subset of items you would like to perform an action on (e.g. files). Thus, consider preserving selections across work sessions, and including them in the list of actions that can be undone. Similarly, if an interface allows a user to customize or rearrange elements, that arrangement or customization should be preserved.

Observance of this first “law” is why features like Apple's Time Machine and autosave, and Dropbox's revision history are so great. They are acknowledgments of the fact that humans make mistakes, and that even though a user may have initiated the destruction of work or data, it may not have been their intent.

Apple's "Browse All Versions" feature is great.

Law #2

Raskin goes on to note that a good second law might be "A computer shall not waste your time or require you to do more work than is strictly necessary."[2]. Too often, users are burdened with tasks because it was simpler to let a person perform the action manually than to code a system to do it automatically. In these cases, when the technology allows, the computer should do the work. An example is forcing a user to select a credit card type, when that information can be inferred from the number.

Stripe does is right, detecting the credit card type automatically.

Also count the time and mental effort required to learn a new interface or a system's data model towards the balance of total work required. It may be less work for a user to perform a single action less efficiently than to first learn a new method before doing it faster. A user likely only interacts with a small set of interfaces all the time. For the rest, it may be worth trading in the speed of performing an action for one that is easier to intuit.

Spotting a situation where you are forcing the user to adapt their own mental model can be tricky because it usually comes from design decisions that impose a structure on a user's content (often a technical requirement) instead of letting them decide how to organize their information, or using a structure with which they are already familiar. Great interfaces bring information in the system to the user in the way(s) they are most likely to want and/or understand it. Take for instance the way most banks expect you to save money. Normally, you have to set money aside by using one or a couple of separate savings accounts, or maybe deal with a single account and keep track of what not to spend yourself. Simple chooses a better alternative. Instead of forcing a user to think of saving money within the structure of how it's implemented (i.e. in bank accounts), Simple allows you to set money aside for any number of "goals," and that amount, along with pending transactions is subtracted from your "Safe-to-Spend" balance.

Simple's "Safe to Spend" recognizes the way people actually want to use their money.

Law #3

What I consider to be Raskin's third law is really what the entire rest of his book is about. He says that an interface should be humane; it should be "responsive to human needs and considerate of human frailties"[3]. This is really the core of the entire discipline of user-centered design, and from where most other interaction design principles are derived. Good interaction design is always about respecting the limitations of the human mind and body. It entails being sensitive to both our visceral, physiological responses, and our cultural values.

One example of making an interface humane is designing around the fact that people have single locus of attention. Take, for instance, having a light on the caps lock key of your keyboard. On its own, this light is not a good solution for avoiding slipping into caps lock mode by mistake because the user's locus of attention is generally not on the key when they press it. Password inputs on the Mac handle this nicely by providing a visual indicator that caps lock is active within the input field itself, where the user is actually looking.

The information about the caps lock is right where you need it.

An example of being "responsive to human needs" is staying aware of what a user cares about when performing an action or going through a workflow (hint: it is what they are trying to accomplish and not your app). See how Amazon automatically shows you whether the lens you are viewing will work with your recently purchased camera.

Amazon's camera lens compatibility widget

This last “law” is where the meat of the interaction design discipline is. There is a great deal more to know about designing interfaces in today's world such that it is humane, from Gestalt principles of perception and the graphic design principles they inform, to the relevant bits of cultural psychology. Our work rarely final. As time passes, the technology landscape and our cultural context slowly changes, so we truck along, continually evolving our designs and design processes.

These three laws, however, are a fundamental set of guidelines that I find myself returning to repeatedly as touchstones of a successful interface. They are useful to keep in mind as you make decisions about how an interface should look and act, regardless of the aesthetic style you end up with.

TL;DR

A computer shall not harm your work or, through inaction, allow your work to come to harm.

A computer shall not waste your time or require you to do more work than is strictly necessary.

An interface should be humane; it should be responsive to human needs and considerate of human frailties.

]]>The Three Laws of Interaction DesignWhat I Learned About Design at SquarespaceDiogenes BritoWed, 05 Mar 2014 05:34:53 +0000http://uxdiogenes.com/blog/what-i-learned-about-design-at-squarespace4ea1db0dd09ac4c7fce2d997:4ec97b9dd09a9f2fb6cf0e48:5316a863e4b05fcac6a682e4Now that I have had time to reflect on it, I can finally put into words the
lessons I came away with after my time at Squarespace. Here are 3 that
might help you on your journeys.

3 Lessons from two years at a startup in New York.

As I began to clear out my desk that last week at Squarespace and thought about saying goodbye to my colleagues, I realized I felt the same way I did my last week at college, knowing the end of my time on campus was drawing to a close. It was just as difficult to mentally prepare for my move back to California as it was to pack up my dorm room for New York two years earlier.

I began my tenure at Squarespace as an intern through the NYC Turing Fellows program, after which I was hired full time as a Design Engineer and then made my way over to a Product Design position a few months after that. The company was at around 60 people when I started, but it had ballooned to almost 200 by the time I left. It was an invaluable experience for me, and now that I have had time to reflect on it, I can finally put into words the lessons I came away with after my time there.

1) Your Culture is Your Product

If you were to get to know the personalities of the people at Squarespace and how they interact with one another, none of the choices made in the product would surprise you. It is a direct extension of Squarespace's culture, from the arresting imagery to the stark settings interface.

I also saw first hand at Squarespace how the source of a company's culture is its "ruling body's" personality and values. If you are a friend of CEO and Founder Anthony Casalena, you will have a good idea of what his employees care about in the workplace. Squarespace's culture is a direct extension of his ideals, and it manifests itself in every aspect of the company's product. Look to the values of your company's leadership, and you will begin to understand what the company is likely or unlikely to be able to accomplish. Plans aligned with the culture--notice I didn't say mission statement--will succeed, and those that do not will be poorly executed and doomed to fail.

If you can't think of an example of how this is true in your company, take a look at how Google's design language did not evolve until new CEO Larry Page mandated that it should. Google is a perfect example of how a company's products and brand are a result of its culture, and how that culture is a result of its leadership.

During the very last all-hands meeting I attended at Squarespace, Anthony spoke to us about how he and the leadership team got together to distill the company's values. He presented 8 that would eventually end up on this page, and stressed that the list was an attempt to put into words what we already believed in as a whole, not what they would like us to believe in, or thought sounded good for the company. Indeed every value in that list described how we worked and what we cared about, so there were no surprises.

2) You Are What You Eat

"[Designers] are cultural scavengers and the appropriation of elements are accidentally or unexpectedly found in their work. [sic]"

I was continually amazed by the examples of good art, photography, and design work that the other designers collected and shared, and my exposure to it made me better at my craft. I believe it is important for every creative to seek out and immerse themselves in great work. Tellingly, the custom at Squarespace was to surround yourself with beautiful, functional tools--digital and physical alike. It was very easy to tell whether a design had reached the right level of finish because it would suddenly claim its place on the USM desk, among the anodized MacBooks and beautiful Phaidon hardcovers on the bookshelves.

Try it. If you are a designer, ask yourself: how does this piece of my work measure up to the other work I love? Did I put in the same amount of care and attention to detail?

3) The User's Experience is Your Brand

At Squarespace we cared about each individual user having a good end-to-end experience with the product more than the abstract idea of an aggregate, generally positive user experience. How does a single user experience Squarespace, starting from exploring the homepage and continuing all the way through to signing up, creating a site, maintaining it, and interacting with customer care? Using that perspective, the focus when designing and building version 6 was first to make sure that a creative with a portfolio would love the system. This (relatively small) group was a good first choice because it was one of the hardest to design for, and the notion was that solving their needs meant we would meet those of other, less demanding users in a beautiful way more easily as the system continued to evolve. It was only after providing that group with an experience we were proud of that we moved on to focus on certain kinds of small businesses, like restaurants etc. It is a strategy that allows for better design through focus, and more often than not, doing less better leads to more universal appeal.

Anthony was fond of referring to a customer's Squarespace site as their online clothing, and Squarespace's brand as more akin to a luxury fashion brand than that of the typical technology company. This ended up being an apt metaphor because high-end brands look at creating product experiences in the same way. You might imagine your average tech company leaving an element a few pixels out of alignment or releasing a feature with missing details just to "get it out there." Can you imagine Prada or Louis Vuitton allowing a handbag with crooked detailing or releasing an unfinished pair of shoes? A user's concern is about whether a product meets their needs and delights them, not whether it mostly meets most people's needs.

Putting it Into Practice

These three lessons also highlight how important it is to choose your company carefully as a designer. Choosing a company that doesn't just pay design and user experience lip service will make the difference between work you can be proud of, and losing steam trying to execute or painting capybaras. Evaluating a company through the lens of these lessons can show you what it would be like to work there as a creative. 1) What is the culture like and what do the higher-ups care about? 2) What sorts of digital and physical tools and objects are the designers surrounded by? 3) How does a user feel about using the product for the first time? These are the questions I would think about when evaluating working at a new company.

I am thankful to Squarespace for giving me the opportunity to learn these lessons so early in my career as I know I will take them with me for the rest of it. So long, Squarespace, and thanks for all the fish*.

]]>What I Learned About Design at SquarespaceDesign Process Phase 0: AcceptanceDiogenes BritoSun, 21 Jul 2013 03:20:32 +0000http://uxdiogenes.com/blog/design-process-phase-0-acceptance4ea1db0dd09ac4c7fce2d997:4ec97b9dd09a9f2fb6cf0e48:51eb5398e4b0c3d273f16001Some design projects are doomed to failure before they even begin. No, I am
not talking about really stupid ideas. I'm referring to when you skip the
oft ignored but essential starting point for every creative project:
acceptance.Some design projects are doomed to failure before they even begin. No, I am not talking about really stupid ideas. I'm referring to when you skip the oft ignored but essential starting point for every creative project: acceptance.

What is Acceptance?

One of the reasons I love the The Universal Traveler's map of the creative process is that it is one of the few that includes the mental step of acceptance. Acceptance is the pre-flight phase of the creative process where the decision is made to commit your mental (and sometimes physical) energy to the task. The Universal Traveler describes it as follows:

Acceptance is a voluntary agreement to adapt yourself and your needs, at least in part or for a trial period, to something else. Acceptance is an act of self-giving.

Fundamentally, acceptance is a prerequisite to commitment. Both design students and professionals bump up against problems with lack of acceptance, as their projects may have been assigned to them by a teacher or a boss, respectively, and not chosen by their own volition. These projects get half-baked solutions and are pushed aside at the slightest distraction. Even personal projects taken on by choice can suffer when acceptance is withdrawn part-way through due to project fatigue. I would argue that acceptance level management among all members of a design project's team is crucial to its success. Acceptance is not only important to designers, but to anyone undertaking a new project (including marketers and software engineers), because creative problem-solving requires buying in to the problem and committing to solving it.

Why Stay Conscious of Acceptance?

It is important to pay attention to your level of acceptance of a project because lack of acceptance blocks flow. For those unfamiliar, flow is a term coined by Mihály Csíkszentmihályi, the former head of the psychology department of the University of Chicago and the leading researcher in the field of positive psychology. In his research into what makes life worth living and the source of happiness, he discovered a mental state that appeared when people were at their most satisfied. This flow state is one where you are completely immersed and engaged in a single task, akin to what most people describe as being "in the zone." Time disappears and nothing exists outside of the task at hand. Creatives are at their most productive when in the flow state, and a lack of acceptance puts up a mental block that prevents extended, 100%-focused time from occurring.

With some close self-monitoring it should be easy to spot when your acceptance of a project is low and your involvement isn't sincere. Staying aware of your acceptance will allow you to better appraise your limits so you know which kinds of projects you should take on and which you should avoid, meaning more successful projects and better overall output.

Fully Accept Your Projects

Before you begin working on your next project, think about whether you have fully mentally accepted it as your own. In some cases where it is possible, it might be best to pass on the project to someone else. In the more frequent case where you have to (and will) work on the project regardless of your personal preference, accepting it and fully committing to it will benefit your state of mind during the project as well as the end result. Remember that "[t]he most profound choice in life is to either accept things as they exist or accept the responsibility for changing them.[^1]"

]]>Design Process Phase 0: AcceptanceiOS7: What Have We Learned?Diogenes BritoFri, 21 Jun 2013 15:57:11 +0000http://uxdiogenes.com/blog/ios74ea1db0dd09ac4c7fce2d997:4ec97b9dd09a9f2fb6cf0e48:51c47746e4b023fb4b7b181bI have to assume I am not the only one tired of seeing iOS7 articles
dominating my feeds, but I think it is important to talk about what we can
learn about the art and science of interaction design from iOS7 and the
reactions of designers and non-designers (muggles?) to it.

As is always the case after the World Wide Developer's Conference, the internet has been abuzz with talk about Apple and its new goodies. In design spheres most of the talk has been about the radical redesign of the UI of version 7 of Apple's mobile operating system, or iOS7. I have to assume I am not the only one tired of seeing iOS7 articles dominating my feeds, but I think it is important to talk about what we can learn about the art and science of interaction design from iOS7 and the reactions of designers and non-designers (muggles?) to it.

Why You Should Care

Put simply, the set of interface patterns provided by iOS, its bundled applications, and Apple's human interface guidelines, are a cornerstone of modern interaction design. To quote a certain expat Dane colleague of mine:

"[Apple has] singlehandedly brought humane computing to the world at large in ways that most of their competitors have only dreamt of…[a]nd iOS is the summation of their work; an operating system so simple, yet powerful, that babies, the elderly and even cats can use it." -- Michael Heilemann

Apple is also arguably the consumer product design leader of the world right now, and creators should always keep an ear to the ground when their craft is concerned. Plus, since lazy companies and their employees like to mindlessly copy industry leaders, watching top players is a great way to keep a finger on the pulse of the digital interaction design world.

Now, on to lessons learned from iOS7 and the community response to it.

Lesson 1: Understanding "It Sucks" (or, Always Ask Why)

Design is equal parts art and science, so there is a fair amount that is entirely subjective (beauty is in the eye of the beholder and all that). By now we have seen people take a quick look at iOS7 and say "it sucks," or "it's awesome." Gut reactions are important, but not necessarily super useful on the road of continuous improvement. Much of the immediate negative reaction is familiarity bias and loss aversion.

We love what we know and we’re afraid of what we don’t, so we don’t want to see our old friend replaced with this new thing. It’s irrational, but it’s human nature. --Chris Clark

When evaluating a radically different design, we have to let users spend some time with it to avoid the immediate distaste for something unfamiliar and different. That said, we must also consider our design's first impression. Is the gestalt of it turning people off? Has thought been given to the design as a whole in addition to the individual details that make it up? Part of the initial negative reaction to iOS7 lies in how the inconsistency of the new iconography in iOS7 and the disharmony of the colors on the home screen leave something to be desired.

Similarly, if the first response was "it's awesome," we have to make sure that the beauty isn't only skin deep. Is the interface still delightful after continued use? Does it actually help the user meet their goals? The redesigned apps in iOS7 make clever use of layers, transparency, and motion to indicate context, which helps users understand the relationship between different states and views of the interface. I am happy to see designers understanding how motion is the body language of your interface, and can play as important a role as sizing and contrast when showing hierarchy. However, in the move to the new aesthetic, the interface introduces problems that the previous version did not have.

Lesson 2: Separating Style from Substance

On one hand, Apple's radical redesign is messing with what could be considered a "tried and true" formula. Of course, the change is at least partially motivated by market trends and need to draw customers in with something shiny and new. On the other hand, we have to remember the ultimate goal behind pursuing a "flatter" design: to better solve interface design problems. Flat design is not a goal in and of itself; remember the questions we should be asking ourselves. How can we make this friendly and approachable to new users? How can we account for the different skill levels and sensibilities of different kinds of users? How can we make clear all available functions while optimizing for the most common workflows? To quote Apple's own marketing materials:

"[O]ur purpose was to create an experience that was simpler, more useful, and more enjoyable — while building on the things people love about iOS."

Apple succeeded in meeting this goal in some areas and failedin others, but the goal remains the same. A novice designer might recognize a general trend towards less ornamented or three dimensional designs and think, I will just have to make everything flat from now on. That person would be missing the point. Every designer who thinks that way pushes our discipline towards the nasty, trend-mongering, fashion industry end of the spectrum. As my a teacher once told me, "don't do what the experts do. Do what the experts did to become experts".

Lesson 3: We're Still Figuring Out Modern UI Design

Design is about imparting meaning. It is functional story telling and communication, and like story telling, it is about intimate knowledge of your audience. It is applied psychology. And as always, as we venture into the wild and largely uncharted territory of the human mind, things get messy. Frank Chimero makes a good point:

"Interface designers for the iPhone have an unusual problem: the phone is so successful, the designers’ target audience is practically everyone. How do you even begin to design for that?" -- Frank Chimero

Technology is one of the fastest changing industries, and the interaction designers in the industry are still figuring out what works, and what should be improved. As we mature as an industry, and trends become popular and fade away only to resurface again in a different form, our techniques and understanding will improve.

Keep Calm and Carry On

In the end we all have to trust in disciplined process and iteration. I will leave you with a last quotation from Seth Godin:

Great work from a design team means new work, refreshing and remarkable and bit scary.

P.P.S. If you are interested in further (good) reading about iOS7, check out this roundup.

]]>iOS7: What Have We Learned?Designers, Developers, and Unicorns, Oh my! Reflections After Hitting the Hacker News Home PageDiogenes BritoThu, 16 May 2013 12:08:26 +0000http://uxdiogenes.com/blog/designers-developers-and-unicorns-oh-my-reflections-after-hitting-the-hacker-news-home-page4ea1db0dd09ac4c7fce2d997:4ec97b9dd09a9f2fb6cf0e48:51945ab4e4b0c4d402cb10dcI realized that despite my insistence that people be conscientious about
which words they choose, I had been lax with my labels in my last article,
and missed an important point about the level at which you can
realistically practice both disciplines simultaneously.A couple of weeks ago I published an article about how design and development are not orthogonal disciplines. That is to say, they are not mutually exclusive, and becoming more of a designer does not make you less of a developer, and vice versa. More importantly, the qualities and ways of thinking that make you a better developer also make you a better designer (the converse also being true). The article hit the front page of Hacker News and if the 74 (mostly) thoughtful comments are anything to go by, this is a concept that many people are thinking about. Reading the discussion about the topic, I realized that despite my insistence that people be conscientious about which words they choose, I had been lax with my labels, and missed an important point about the level at which you can realistically practice both disciplines simultaneously.

Something Design

The root of the word design is the latin designare (de, from + signare, to mark), which means to mark out. The original latin root is closer to our modern use of the word "designate," but its connotation of applying meaning has strengthened over time such that we now use the word to mean "the creation of a plan or convention for the construction of an object or a system."1 Designers create plans for making things, which means people creating software are designers too. When I spoke of "designers" versus "developers," I left out the implicit modifier that should appear before the word design when used in a web context. I never said which kind of designers I meant. In general when people are talking about web related projects we mean an interaction or visual/graphic designer. To quote @adrianh's wonderful comment,

The real problem is with the labels "designer" and "developer". They're not "real" things. They're reifications. They're arbitrary labels we apply to certain communities of practices."

In my article I was referring to interaction designers, specifically. For those not in the know, an interaction designer is a designer with a collection of skills focusing on modifying and eliciting desired user behaviors. Like other web design disciplines, interaction designers have an interest in an interface's form. Graphic/visual designers focus more specifically on the look and form of the interface but that leaks into interaction design because beautiful interfacesare easierto use, and tend to have a great hierarchy of visual information, making them easier to understand.
Whether you think of interaction designers and graphic designers working on the web as separate, or group them under the term user interface (UI) designer, the fact remains that their ways of thinking and working overlap with that of web developers.

A Jack of All Trades, Master of Some

The other point I left out is why I included the "world-class" level designation in my diagrams. I should have said that while it is possible for a single person to practice both interaction design and software engineering at a professional level, rare is the person who can become world class at both. To quote @adrianh again,

"Nobody, or only a very, very, few extraordinarily talented individuals, are great at everything in development. Ditto for design. People have preferences and specialities. Why not pick from both baskets? Design and development are both complicated. However, in some places (e.g. figuring out what people need, requirements gathering, etc.) they are complicated in the same kind of way. In other places (spotting patterns, simplifications, etc.) they involve similar sorts of skills.

In general, a single person cannot be good at everything, but they can be really good at many things, including the required skill sets to effectively practice both interaction design and software engineering for the web at a professional level. The reason doing so is feasible is the amount of overlap between the two professions. To borrow again from Austin Bales' talk,

"It's not like we're marine biologists and coffee baristas…we're all just making web stuff."

Unicorns in the Wild: Its Not a Job Title

In the real world, only a select few (smaller) companies look specifically for people who can practice visual, interaction, and software design at a professional level simultaneously. These companies--usually start-ups--need every employee to perform double duty because there are so few. The extreme example of this is the "one man shop," the freelancer who is forced to design and implement website interfaces. As a person with the skills of the fabled "unicorn," you generally have to resign yourself to being dealt with as a designer who can code, or a software engineer with interaction design skills. In bigger companies, a person who is capable to doing both interaction design and software engineering has to choose one to dedicate the majority of his or her time to one or the other. These employees are still highly valued because an interaction designer who can code is a better designer because he/she is better aware of the design constraints on the web. A software engineer who knows about information architecture and visual hierarchy is a better engineer because he/she is able to make better tradeoffs when reducing scope due to technical limitations (and let us never forget that API design is UX design for code).

Becoming A Unicorn

Practically speaking, necessity is the mother of all…unicorns.
To use BJ Fogg's behavior model, people only do stuff when there's ability, motivation, and a trigger. In the case of a unicorn, both the motivation and the trigger is usually the result of a project that with an upcoming deadline, and the ability comes from a computer with an internet connection. Continuously put yourself in a position where you have to do both design and development, and that forehead horn will grow eventually.

]]>On Being a Designer and a Developer: Not Quite Unicorn RareDiogenes BritoMon, 29 Apr 2013 02:58:54 +0000http://uxdiogenes.com/blog/on-being-a-designer-and-a-developer-not-quite-unicorn-rare4ea1db0dd09ac4c7fce2d997:4ec97b9dd09a9f2fb6cf0e48:517de203e4b065cfbf651396Is trying to become both a developer and a designer an attempt to become a
mythical, impossible creature?Ever since I started teaching at the New York Code and Design Academy, I have been thinking about the core qualities of a successful designer and developer. The class aims to teach the students enough to build a web application on their own, from concept to completion. It is a 96 hour, 16 week course taught in 3 hour chunks, so the goal is really to—starting from nothing—give them the knowledge they would need to get started in the tech industry. But if my co-teacher Zach and I expect to train our students to practice web design and development at a professional level, does that mean we are attempting to train unicorns?

The Supposed Spectrum

I think most people think of a hard designer-developer split, as if there is a spectrum with designer on one end and developer on the other. They see it something like this:

The more of an engineer you are, the less of a designer you are, and vice versa. Perhaps it is because engineering is more associated with analytical "left brain" thinking and design is seen as a more creative, "right brain" exercise. In reality, this is a false dichotomy, as both designers and developers need to use a combination of divergent and convergent thinking to innovate and problem solve. Both disciplines are more similar than most people (and the internet) make it seem.

Good designers and good developers actually have a lot in common.

— Austin Bales

As Austin Bales says in a great talk, good designers and good developers actually have a lot in common. The crossover really even shows itself in our language when we use (appropriate) terms like "social engineering" for techniques designers use to illicit certain behaviors, or "software design" for the planning and creation of programming code. Both designers and developers put a premium on simplicity and clarity. Both are trying to make their creations as easy to intuit and work with as possible. Developers refactor their code as requirements change and complexity increases the same way designers redesign interfaces to make room for new or changing functionality. They have similar traits, skills, and motivations, they just work in different mediums and have different specialties. Designers tend to specialize and focus on the beginning of the creation process, whereas engineers specialize on the end or latter half of the process. I say a more accurate representation of a single person's skills might look something like this:

Each person has a certain level of skill in the designer and/or developer subject areas, where many of the skills and habits that would make you excel in either area would help in both. People may have a tendency to lean towards one area over the other, but no one has a "type" that would prevent them from learning and improving as a designer or a developer. What matters is the time and effort put into learning. World class designers and developers have put in lots and lots of dedicated practice: their (proverbial) 10,000 hours.

I wanted to write about this because as I attempt to distill my professional experience into teachable morsels for my students, I have realized that the one of biggest barrier is mental. People who have categorized themselves as an engineering (or math and science) type will shy away from and avoid areas of knowledge considered to be in the realm of a designer (or "creative") type. At Stanford this took the form of the great divide between engineering major "techies" and humanities major "fuzzies." I believe this prevented many would-be "ninjas" and "unicorns" from ever reaching their potential. The effect is similar to having a fixed mindset instead of a growth mindset. Deciding you will never be good at design because you are a "developer type" is a sure way to never become a good designer. You have set up a self fulfilling prophecy.

Being a great designer and a great developer is not an impossibility. With enough time and effort, you can become a designer or developer or both, no forehead horn required.

]]>Fear of the Blank PageDiogenes BritoMon, 11 Mar 2013 02:59:55 +0000http://uxdiogenes.com/blog/fear-of-the-blank-page4ea1db0dd09ac4c7fce2d997:4ec97b9dd09a9f2fb6cf0e48:513d1e06e4b060b33d4fc445Creation is a deeply personal process. The work you put out into the world
represents you, and so creation is the act making yourself vulnerable. It
means exposing yourself to the opinions of others. That is why I fear the
blank page. Creation is a deeply personal process. The work you put out into the world represents you, and so creation is the act making yourself vulnerable. It means exposing yourself to the opinions of others. That is why I fear the blank page. I see the gap. I feel the distance between my taste and my ability to create. Every time I start a new design project, I feel the doubts creeping in. Will I create anything good this time? I seem to simultaneously experience the four fears: the fear of the messy unknown, the fear of judgement, the fear of the first step, and the fear of losing control. Like other young designers, I have to push through those fears every time I start something that other people will eventually see.

When I was in Stanford's design program, a professor named Dave Beach had everyone raise jazz hands to the sky. He then instructed us to jump and cheer, "I failed!" I have never forgotten that moment. "Fail early, fail often" was the mantra. The goal was to build up an immunity to failure, so that fear of it would never hold you back. Like Dick Karpinski says, "anything worth doing is worth doing badly—at first." I remember that, and it keeps me from freezing up. The enemy of creativity is fear, so I keep going, no matter what might happen.

]]>Know Your words: Why Reading is the Absolute Best Thing a Designer Can DoDiogenes BritoTue, 22 Jan 2013 17:04:49 +0000http://uxdiogenes.com/blog/know-your-words-why-reading-is-the-absolute-best-thing-a-designer-can-do4ea1db0dd09ac4c7fce2d997:4ec97b9dd09a9f2fb6cf0e48:50fec6d0e4b0dc8c8e332b17One of the most important things you need to do as a designer is read about
your craft. Reading improves your design vocabulary, and that shapes the
way you deal with design problems.One of the most important things you need to do as a designer is read about your craft. Read about the philosophy, practice, and history of design. Consuming books on topics related to design and art provides you with fresh new perspectives on approaching and evaluating design problems, while teaching you about the design process as a whole and it's many variations. More importantly, reading about it improves your design vocabulary.

Language shapes thought, humans think and imagine based on things that they have already seen. Even wild and far out thoughts are extrapolations from some base of your reality, or some analogy you have mentally constructed with your words. In that way your language and vocabulary become a framework for your thought process. Language "is a powerful tool in shaping thought about abstract domains," and thus shapes the way you deal with design problems.

When all you have is a hammer, everything begins to look like a nail.

— Maslow's hammer

It is as the old adage says, when all you have is a hammer, everything begins to look like a nail. By increasing your vocabulary and the number of ways you have to describe design concepts and perspectives, you are increasing your mental tool box.

That is why designers are, and should be collectors. Designers are cultural scavengers that collect experiences and the objects that represent them. Paul Rand said "the artist is a collector of things imaginary or real. He accumulates things with the same enthusiasm that a little boy stuffs his pockets. The scrap heap and the museum are embraced with equal curiosity." The same should be said for collecting words and ways of describing. Your vocabulary along with your experiences form a framework for conceptualization. Reading about varied perspectives on design, especially about ways of describing design related concepts, can help you produce better creative output, with the added bonus of being able to better communicate design to people of different backgrounds than your own.

Remember that words and descriptions are a map of reality, but the map is not the territory. Words are simply symbols we use to represent ideas of varying abstractness, so the more we have, the better off we are as designers.

]]>Design is a Moving TargetDiogenes BritoSun, 26 Aug 2012 23:36:21 +0000http://uxdiogenes.com/blog/design-is-a-moving-targetbyDiogenesBrito4ea1db0dd09ac4c7fce2d997:4ec97b9dd09a9f2fb6cf0e48:503ab2f5e4b0b21a97c49342Design is temporal. A great design lives at a certain moment in time and is
evaluated against the backdrop of culture. As culture continuously evolves,
so does the best solution to any single design problem. Perfection is
contextual: The best creative solution to a problem is only ever the best
one at that time and place.

The statute of limitations on problem solutions is short

— Don Koberg and Jim Bagnall, The Universal Traveler

Design is temporal. It lives at a certain moment in time and is evaluated against the backdrop of culture. As culture continuously evolves, so does the best solution to any single design problem. Perfection is contextual: The best creative solution to a problem is only ever the best one at that time and place.

What about those "timeless" designs? What about those objects from 50 years ago that we still covet (I'm looking at you Dieter Rams). What about the pieces that everyone agrees are at least as beautiful as when they were created—if not as functional—and have not since been improved upon in a significant way? Truly great designs are longer lived, almost eternal. That is because "timeless" designs get at visceral, fundamentally human responses, and thus are less affected by ever-changing culture. These emotional designs tug at deep, biological preferences rooted in our animal nature. Unfortunately, the only way to really be sure a design does this is to reexamine it later on.

That's why design is such a moving target. As a designer you are trying to meet your own impossibly high expectations. You are battling design constraints while balancing client demands and your own standards of quality. Your only recourse is to fall back to your design process and rely on your battle-tested tools. Maybe you work directly out of The Universal Traveler, or maybe you need to shuttle back and forth between brainstorms, mind maps, and Post-It ridden whiteboards sessions. This is something many young designers entering the field struggle with. They have not been consistently using their process long enough to place their full trust in it. I am familiar with that feeling myself. It's a nagging anxiety about the final product, the fear that what I create will not measure up. Fear is the natural enemy of creativity, and it leads to half hearted design decisions and design directions not fully explored.

So take heart, designers! Tune and follow your process diligently. You only have to worry about making the best design possible for here and now. "What looks ripe today can become moldy tomorrow" (Don Koberg and Jim Bagnall, The Universal Traveler).

]]>7 Things I Learned at GoogleDiogenes BritoWed, 21 Dec 2011 21:29:55 +0000http://uxdiogenes.com/blog/the-7-things-i-learned-at-google4ea1db0dd09ac4c7fce2d997:4ec97b9dd09a9f2fb6cf0e48:4ec97e35d09a9f2fb6cf0ecaAfter a summer at Google, I came away with 7 valuable lessons I'll remember
forever.Last summer, I had the opportunity to intern at the incredible Google, Inc. I was a BOLD intern in their Real Estate and Workplace Services Team, which is in charge of space acquisition and planning, as well as all the other internal Googler services (security, food, etc.). I was able to design and implement an internal tool for Googlers, but perhaps more importantly, I learned a number of valuable lessons. Without further ado, I present to you the 7 things I learned at Google.

Get feedback from users as early as possible

This is something that really hit home for me as a designer. Following the designer's mantra of "Fail early, fail often, fail cheaply," always get feedback from users as early on in the process as you can. You'll learn a more than you expected and probably save precious time and money. You might be tempted (as I was) to "finish" the first version of your project before showing it to people, but this eliminates the invaluable feedback you need about your proposed work flow. You might find yourself needing to start over (again, as I did) because you have to make a major change in the structure of your interface, something easily avoided by showing users wireframe concepts and ideas for the general flow of whatever process it is you are working on.

Communicate about the little things

Many times, you might not comment on something that you find problematic--something that you disagree with, annoys you, or could be better--because it is relatively minor. These sorts of things can go unmentioned and unnoticed, eventually turning into much bigger problems or feelings of resentment that lead to unhappiness at work. Everyone knows communication is key, but being vocal about the little things can be just as important as being vocal about more obviously important issues. Speaking up about something small can lead to improvements and optimizations that build up over the long run (and keep your team happy and running smoothly). Of course, always be careful about how and when you deliver your comments, but definitely be sure to not wait too long make them heard.

Go above and beyond your duties

The simple truth is, if you always go above and beyond your assigned duties, those you work for will have no choice but to reward you. Results speak for themselves.

Support your team.

Get your job done, and do it well, but also take time out to help others on your team perform at their best. You might not give a flying hoot about what they are doing, but your teams success is your success. As a bonus, you'll build strong interpersonal relationships that can be very advantageous in the long run.

Never let the chance to learn something new pass you by

Never choose not to learn something because you think you wont need it. Only pass up the opportunity to learn something new if you really need the time to get something important done, or you want to prioritize learning something else. Ignoring an opening to learn something new will leave you stagnant in your position, and there's no way of knowing when having that piece of information might be useful. Particularly for people like designers, who collaborate as part of multidisciplinary teams, knowledge is power. New ideas can only come from your collective set of experiences, so every new one increases the size of your toolkit.

Spend time to make time

Spend time planning your work and making sure your workflow (and workstation) is set up to be as comfortable and efficient as possible. Getting rid of small annoyances and inefficiencies in your process leads to huge savings in the long run. This is especially true for highly repetitive processes (save tons of time) and ergonomics (save your health and comfort). Also make sure to double check your safeguards (make sure your backups are actually backing up). You'll be glad you did when something goes awry, as happened to me several times.

Ride the wave

Not Google Wave, that's not doing so hot...I mean that you should look for areas and industries where a lot of things are changing. Find out where the movers and shakers are and jump right in there with them. Being in that sort of environment means that you'll be there when that once in a lifetime opportunity comes and you can ride that wave to success.